Proposition 8

[Duality]

The etiology of anomalous sexual preferences in men.
Ann N Y Acad Sci. 2003 Jun;989:105-17; discussion 144-53.

People discover rather than choose their sexual interests. The process of discovery typically begins before the onset of puberty and is associated with an increase in the secretion of sex hormones from the adrenal glands. However, the determinants of the direction of sexual interest, in the sense of preferences for the same or opposite sex, are earlier. These preferences, although not manifest until much later in development, appear to be caused by the neural organizational effects of intrauterine hormonal events. Variations in these hormonal events likely have several causes and two of these appear to have been identified for males. One cause is genetic and the other involves the sensitization of the maternal immune system to some aspect of the male fetus. It is presently unclear how these two causes relate to each other. The most important question for future research is whether preferences for particular-aged partners and parts of the male courtship sequence share causes similar to those of erotic gender orientation.



The church is the biggest group of hypocrites ever. I've said before, I don't mind those who have faith something exists, but adhering to the doctrine of what someone tells you to in a religion just doesn't make any sense to a critical thinker. How many priests have abused their position and molested young boys? So many things that the church does blatantly contradicts their doctrine. Lets look at what the church says about rape.


Deuteronomy 22:23-24, 28-29 NLT

If within the city a man comes upon a maiden who is betrothed, and has relations with her, you shall bring them both out of the gate of the city and there stone them to death: the girl because she did not cry out for help though she was in the city, and the man because he violated his neighbors wife.
....
If a man is caught in the act of raping a young woman who is not engaged, he must pay fifty pieces of silver to her father. Then he must marry the young woman because he violated her, and he will never be allowed to divorce her.

It's just funny, these kinds of verses almost get (pardon the pun) tucked in the closet when discussing religion.

My thoughts, who gives a shit what they call it? Don't these people have better things to do with their time than retroactively ban gay marriages, like, I dunno, control the government spending and end bullshit wars?

this point here is moot. someone made the very same kind of post about the koran in another thread and it was either you or tech that immediately jumped to the koran's defense saying the verse was taken out of context. guess what you're doing here? yes i agree it's a stupid verse, but no preacher preaches this, so really what's the point?

either way i do agree that the church can be hypocritical in how it approaches many things. but not here. they aren't preaching hate. they are morally opposed to gay marriage and are doing what the constitution affords them in voicing their opinion.

and again, we do have a lot more on our plate and this doesn't deserve the attention it's been getting. i think my approach to it is as fair as you'll find, give them all their rights and allow them to be a union under law, but don't call it marriage. both sides win imo.

 

[Skeptic]

Where does the church get off harping on gays. The church is one of this biggest breeders of homosexuality and pedophilia.

 

[Samoan-Z]

this point here is moot. someone made the very same kind of post about the koran in another thread and it was either you or tech that immediately jumped to the koran's defense saying the verse was taken out of context. guess what you're doing here? yes i agree it's a stupid verse, but no preacher preaches this, so really what's the point?

either way i do agree that the church can be hypocritical in how it approaches many things. but not here. they aren't preaching hate. they are morally opposed to gay marriage and are doing what the constitution affords them in voicing their opinion.

and again, we do have a lot more on our plate and this doesn't deserve the attention it's been getting. i think my approach to it is as fair as you'll find, give them all their rights and allow them to be a union under law, but don't call it marriage. both sides win imo.

x2

 

[TJ]

Damn, a lot of long posts and good points in this thread.

I think it's stupid that someone who's gay can't do what makes them happy just because "the bible says so." Honestly, whoever says gays can't get married either has some major insecurities or are not comfortable with their own sexuality. I do think churches should be allowed to make their own decisions but I do think voting on it is absurd.

 

[Braaq]

Duality, if you think being gay is a choice then you clearly have never known a gay individual. Lesbians however, many are not really gay. Those that are lesbian from the beginning are but many are also spiteful woman who hate men because of something some man did to them. But trust me, why on earth would a man chose to be gay? Do you have any clue what these people go through because of how different they are? Many become suicidal, get raped, beaten, etc because they were born different. If you knew what those that grew up gay have experienced you would know that it is definitely not a choice.

Also, Jason you are agnostic. You told me you are not christian, you just believe in God and the "golden rule" as I do. That is agnostic, believing there is a god but not organized religion.
We can agree to disagree on whether marriage should be defined as a union between only a man and a woman because that is the only thing we do not see eye to eye and I don't see that changing.

 

[Kanav]

Frankly I don't even believe in "marriage". So I don't endorse it even for straight folks. Its just a word really.

That said, America is based on the "pursuit of happiness", that pursuit is WHATEVER you choose. If marrying someone of the same gender is it, than so be it.


These people aren't directly affecting my life and how I go about my day, so it doesn't have any weight on me whatsoever. And I really dont see why it would weigh anyone else down.

People will always do things that you don't agree with, but forcing them to abide with the way you perceive morality is fascist at best.

 

[El Freako]

i like how you in now way read my 2nd post and spoke in absolutes that are just flat wrong. please read again, and allow to sink in. repeat as neccesary.

My comment was not a response to yours or any other posts in this thread. It was a statement of how I feel about the whole situation. And as far as I'm concerned they are not "flat wrong". You're opinions on this matter are ignorant and I'll stand by that. Fuck discrimination and fuck those who discriminate.

...... did you seriously say colored people lmao, we prefer african american coolsanta

I actually meant people of any race... although the example I used did specifically relate to black people. I think I only used "coloured" because that was what the signs said back in those dark old days. What I should have said was "people of other ethnicities".

Duality, if you think being gay is a choice then you clearly have never known a gay individual. Lesbians however, many are not really gay. Those that are lesbian from the beginning are but many are also spiteful woman who hate men because of something some man did to them. But trust me, why on earth would a man chose to be gay? Do you have any clue what these people go through because of how different they are? Many become suicidal, get raped, beaten, etc because they were born different. If you knew what those that grew up gay have experienced you would know that it is definitely not a choice.

I have many gay friends but I'll discuss one in particular. He's a school mate of my younger brother and he tells us that he has known he was gay in some degree since he was 12. He still went out with and had sex with girls all the way through high school because that was the thing to do as a teenage boy, but when he graduated and moved away from our fucked up hometown he finally came out to all of his friends. His last girlfriend before he came out was in fact my brother's current partner and she is one of the most beautiful individuals I know. Not even she could sway his sexual direction. He is now a fully fledged fag (as he refers to himself) but still hasn't been able to tell his parents out of fear that they won't accept him. He's not gay by choice, he's gay naturally.

I fully agree with Blake. Considering the amount of prejudice directed at them, 'choosing' to be gay would be ridiculous.

 

[Duality]

Duality, if you think being gay is a choice then you clearly have never known a gay individual. Lesbians however, many are not really gay. Those that are lesbian from the beginning are but many are also spiteful woman who hate men because of something some man did to them. But trust me, why on earth would a man chose to be gay? Do you have any clue what these people go through because of how different they are? Many become suicidal, get raped, beaten, etc because they were born different. If you knew what those that grew up gay have experienced you would know that it is definitely not a choice.

Also, Jason you are agnostic. You told me you are not christian, you just believe in God and the "golden rule" as I do. That is agnostic, believing there is a god but not organized religion.
We can agree to disagree on whether marriage should be defined as a union between only a man and a woman because that is the only thing we do not see eye to eye and I don't see that changing.

you don't see the need for a different word to define something that is inherently different? whatever i guess we don't see eye to eye.

i was using agnosticism in a different sense though. mainly in the sense of those who don't believe nor disbelieve in a God because there isn't enough proof either way. i'm not agnostic in this sense, but i guess in the sense of not supporting organised religion i am.

Originally posted by El Freako
My comment was not a response to yours or any other posts in this thread. It was a statement of how I feel about the whole situation. And as far as I'm concerned they are not "flat wrong". You're opinions on this matter are ignorant and I'll stand by that. Fuck discrimination and fuck those who discriminate.

i am not ignorant to the situation nor am i discriminating against gays. I BELIEVE THEY SHOULD HAVE ALL THE RIGHTS OF A MARRIED COUPLE. however it SHOULD be defined differently because it IS different. marriage is for a man and a woman, let gays come up with their own word for what they want to call their unions. it is easily the fairest thing to do that would make both gays and religious groups relatively satisfied.

 

[Skeptic]

you don't see the need for a different word to define something that is inherently different? whatever i guess we don't see eye to eye.

i was using agnosticism in a different sense though. mainly in the sense of those who don't believe nor disbelieve in a God because there isn't enough proof either way. i'm not agnostic in this sense, but i guess in the sense of not supporting organised religion i am.





i am not ignorant to the situation nor am i discriminating against gays. I BELIEVE THEY SHOULD HAVE ALL THE RIGHTS OF A MARRIED COUPLE. however it SHOULD be defined differently because it IS different. marriage is for a man and a woman, let gays come up with their own word for what they want to call their unions. it is easily the fairest thing to do that would make both gays and religious groups relatively satisfied.

I do not get how you can think that giving them the same rights as everyone else... but at the same time not allowing them to have the same title as others is not discrimination.

 

[Ironslave]

i am not ignorant to the situation nor am i discriminating against gays. I BELIEVE THEY SHOULD HAVE ALL THE RIGHTS OF A MARRIED COUPLE. however it SHOULD be defined differently because it IS different. marriage is for a man and a woman, let gays come up with their own word for what they want to call their unions. it is easily the fairest thing to do that would make both gays and religious groups relatively satisfied.

Who cares what they call it? It affects your life in no way at all.

 

[Duality]

I do not get how you can think that giving them the same rights as everyone else... but at the same time not allowing them to have the same title as others is not discrimination.

how does no one else see this? it IS different, so it should be defined differently. same way a bass guitar isn't just called a guitar or a SUV is different than a truck, they're very similar, but there are core difference that deserve to be defined differently. it's not being discriminatory, it's defining something that is different as it should be while still affording them all the same rights.

 

[Duality]

Who cares what they call it? It affects your life in no way at all.

a lot of stuff doesn't affect my life or your life. we still have our views. this isn't a counter point.

 

[Ironslave]

a lot of stuff doesn't affect my life or your life. we still have our views. this isn't a counter point.

I have views on things that hurt mine and other people's lives..... this hurts nobody's life except those who would be "banned" from it.

 

[Duality]

I have views on things that hurt mine and other people's lives..... this hurts nobody's life except those who would be "banned" from it.

and i'm not for banning it and think they should have all the rights of the married couple. so........ what are we disagreeing on?

do you not see the inherent differences in the gay marriage and hetro marriage? why shouldn't they be defined differently, they are different.

 

[El Freako]

i am not ignorant to the situation nor am i discriminating against gays. I BELIEVE THEY SHOULD HAVE ALL THE RIGHTS OF A MARRIED COUPLE. however it SHOULD be defined differently because it IS different. marriage is for a man and a woman, let gays come up with their own word for what they want to call their unions. it is easily the fairest thing to do that would make both gays and religious groups relatively satisfied.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

how does no one else see this? it IS different, so it should be defined differently. same way a bass guitar isn't just called a guitar or a SUV is different than a truck, they're very similar, but there are core difference that deserve to be defined differently. it's not being discriminatory, it's defining something that is different as it should be while still affording them all the same rights.

Firstly, fuck what religious groups think and fuck satisfying them, they have no right to decide what another individual can and cannot do. As mentioned by Tech: I hope they all die in a fire.

Referring to gay unions by a another name is discrimination, it is treating them differently, prejudicial treatment of them based on certain characteristics. Gay people are not 'different', they are individuals who deserve the same rights as all others.

We both live in 'liberal societies' where, generally, individual rights and freedoms are held in high regard and cherished above nearly all else. So why do you think that some people's rights are not as important as others? I know you will rabbit on saying that "gay couples will have the same rights as heterosexual couples" but this is not true. You are denying them the right to marriage, saying that they can have something else instead, but not marriage, marriage is for special people (read: straight).

do you not see the inherent differences in the gay marriage and hetro marriage? why shouldn't they be defined differently, they are different.

What are these inherent differences? Please explain?

 

[Tech]

Referring to gay unions by a another name is discrimination, it is treating them differently, prejudicial treatment of them based on certain characteristics. Gay people are not 'different', they are individuals who deserve the same rights as all others.

 

[Duality]

El Freako
Firstly, fuck what religious groups think and fuck satisfying them, they have no right to decide what another individual can and cannot do. As mentioned by Tech: I hope they all die in a fire.

you're a child.

Referring to gay unions by a another name is discrimination, it is treating them differently, prejudicial treatment of them based on certain characteristics. Gay people are not 'different', they are individuals who deserve the same rights as all others.

the union of a man and a man is different than that of a man and a woman. period. they are different. they should be defined differently.

We both live in 'liberal societies' where, generally, individual rights and freedoms are held in high regard and cherished above nearly all else. So why do you think that some people's rights are not as important as others? I know you will rabbit on saying that "gay couples will have the same rights as heterosexual couples" but this is not true. You are denying them the right to marriage, saying that they can have something else instead, but not marriage, marriage is for special people (read: straight).

their rights are important and they will have the same rights as the hetro couple. marriage is defined as a man and a woman. find a different word because some of those who are married are offended by the use of that word in gay unions. they have just as much a right to be offended by it as the gay couple do to be together. and according to polls in arizona, california, and several other states who passed similar legislation to prop 8, there are more of those that are offended or opposed to these unions than there are for. these people's opinion matter just as much as the gay ones. you telling them to "fuck off" is just plain funny and as ignorant and a disregarding of liberties as those you are speaking out against.

i don't support what the church is doing in denying gays even the right to be together. they should be. but the church has every right to keep a word with sacred meaning to it sacred in their eyes.

 

[Arcane1129]

I don't get why people are hating on Duality here. He said he doesn't care if homosexual people are married, he just thinks that it should be called a word other than marriage because the definition of marriage says it's between people of opposite sex.

I don't think it's infringing on rights at all if they're awarded the same privelages but you call it a different word.

 

[Tech]

I don't mind if black people have the same rights as us whites, but we should call it something different.......like maybe Jim Crow laws...

lulz. right?

 

[Ironslave]

What happens if a black male and white female (or vice versa) form a 'union'? Should that be called "marriage" as well? Or should we make up another word because it's "different".